DICE On BF3′s Regenerating Tank Health

By Jim Rossignol on September 2nd, 2011 at 8:32 am.


DICE have been going into a bit more detail on the vehicles that will appear in Battlelfield 3. Lots of interesting stuff on specialisation. I’m not sure about this bit, though: “If you back up and take cover, you give yourself a chance to let the vehicle armor recover, just like your soldier heals up when going into cover. This is a new feature in Battlefield 3 where lightly damaged vehicles recover their armor after a set amount of time (if kept away from enemy fire). Instead of promoting a gung-ho attitude at all times, this means that the driver who keeps his cool and adapts to any given situation will also be able to keep his vehicle in working order for longer. It is basically our way of giving smart non-Engineers a fighting chance to keep his vehicle in the battle.” Yes, I get that it says “lightly” damaged, but still seems odd to me. Like a tank picking up a medkit odd. Seems to defeat the point of working with engineers, to me.

Anyway, in case you’d forgotten why we’re excited about Battlefield 3′s multiplayer, I’ve added the Caspian Border footage below. Mmm.

__________________

« | »

, , .

108 Comments »

  1. methodology says:

    “Seems to defeat the point of working with engineers, to me…”

    Except the part where it says only lightly damaged vehicles can recover, not to mention it’ll take quite a while to recover. So, I’m guessing engineers will still be pretty necessary if you’re going into the thick of things. I was apprehensive about this feature at first but the way they explain it makes it sound pretty reasonable.

    • Symitri says:

      Pretty much, I don’t see this as being much different to having a medic and regenerating health in the same game. There’s still a place for the roles, as they quicken up the process considerably and still provide great support, but they’re less of a requirement for success if you’re just queuing on random servers where you don’t know anybody and can’t expect a high level of teamwork.

    • wu wei says:

      I see it less as regeneration and more as simulating stresses & lowered tolerances from light fire which don’t damage the immediate armor but leave it open to real damage under sustained fire.

    • enobayram says:

      An almost wrecked tank recovering in a matter of minutes is by no means more strange than a soldier with 10 bullets in his body recovering in a matter of minutes.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      Except an “almost wrecked” tank wouldn’t recover – only light damage “heals”.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      @Wu Wei – That’s a great way to look at it

    • Zogtee says:

      “Instead of promoting a gung-ho attitude at all times, this means that the driver who keeps his cool and adapts to any given situation will also be able to keep his vehicle in working order for longer.”

      This right here is the key part.

      They’re trying to promote realistic behaviour by adding an unrealistic feature, which I find rather fascinating. It’s not common practice for a tank crew to barrel into combat, fight until the tank is wrecked, and then run off on foot, looking for another tank. That is what happens in most multiplayer games. This feature will *maybe* make tank drivers a bit more cautious, which is what happens on an actual battlefield.

    • dontnormally says:

      My first reaction was: “How could they? I want my manshoots to be the real deal, no funny business!”

      Then I realized, tank operators know basic repair. Minor things would be logical for them to handle.

      Realism approved. Carry on.

    • Trousers says:

      It’s not like welding the tank back to 100% in Bad Company 2 was any more realistic.

  2. Stevostin says:

    ” This is a new feature in Battlefield 3 where lightly damaged”

    Empathize on “lightly”. Engineer still brings something to the table !

  3. Sibilantjoe says:

    Don’t be alarmed, ladies and gents.

    Past a certain damage threshold, vehicles will not recover armor. And with heavy damage comes the horrifying and adrenaline-inducing experience of having one’s vehicle disabled.In the case of the tank, it would slow to a crawl. Fire and smoke would signal that it is in dire need of manual repairs, and that it is only a matter of time before it explodes. But here’s the beauty of the new system: Its weapons will still be functioning, turning this into a high risk situation that can play out in a number of ways.”

    Whew.

    • abhishek says:

      the horrifying and adrenaline-inducing experience of having one’s vehicle disabled.

      This is great. If you’re inside the tank, it gives you the opportunity to walk right out so that the fool who fired 3 rockets at your tank and only managed to disable it will never actually be able to kill you because you’ve left the vehicle while he has to reload his rocket launcher one more time.

    • Bilbo says:

      This is great. If you’re inside the tank, it gives you the opportunity to walk right out so that the fool who fired 3 rockets at your tank and only managed to disable it will never actually be able to kill you because you’ve left the vehicle while he has to reload his rocket launcher one more time.

      Exactly. And that right there is why I can take or leave battlefield games, quite frankly

    • Plankton says:

      I never thought about this, but now I want an FPS based on the Men of War engine, so that we can have these situations where, with a bit of luck, almost destroyed tanks can still wreak havok among the enemy troops.

    • alh_p says:

      Men of War? You mean, as soon as a tank’s body is hit some of its crew die? That’s proper realism, not this – I’ll heal myself up (or bang the tank with a screw driver) and get back in the fight.

    • Telemikus says:

      "This is great. If you’re inside the tank, it gives you the opportunity to walk right out so that the fool who fired 3 rockets at your tank and only managed to disable it will never actually be able to kill you because you’ve left the vehicle while he has to reload his rocket launcher one more time."

      Or… Now that the coward has bolted you can whip out your drill, fix her up and hey presto, you've got yourself some enemy armour.

    • Davee says:

      *cough* Red Orchestra 2 has that, Plankton *cough*

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      “That’s proper realism, not this”
      You do realise that BF games have never been “realistic” right? That’s not their thing.

    • LionsPhil says:

      It’s also a big “hey, shoot this thing, it’s on its last legs” marker.

      They could solve the bailing problem by making it take a couple of completely defenseless seconds. Tanks aren’t something you just open the door and step out of. (While it sounds a bit bogged-down realism-over-fun, it should encourage proper infantry support if the tank driver can’t do both roles.)

    • Njordsk says:

      @abhishek

      Disabling a vehicule kills the driver and other peoples, only the turret guy remained intact in alpha

      Honnestly this didn’t bother me much, I barely noticed it in fact, but I’m not really a vehicule guy.

    • Askeladd says:

      Please consider its 32 vs 32. Vehicles need more HP as they have in BC2 or else its: “drive out of base, get insta gibbed, respawn in base, repeat.”

    • BrotherCabbage says:

      @Njordsk: I don’t know where you got that idea. I was an LAV whore in the Alpha. I drove that thing more times than I can count, and not once was I or anyone else in the vehicle killed when the vehicle was disabled.

  4. Starky says:

    Seems like a good idea to me – realism be damned for good game play.

    If you’re one of those people that feels the need to explain it, well put it down to the tank crew doing internal patches, quick fixes.

    • Eproxus says:

      Yeah, hopefully it’ll lead to some calmer gameplay without people rushing in getting blowed up or people using tanks just for transport, abandoning them when they’ve gotten where they wanted.

      I’ve always loathed people who didn’t drive the vehicles to actually use them for what they’re good for.

    • methodology says:

      as a connoisseur of stealing enemy armor i will gravely miss this…

    • BrotherCabbage says:

      @Methodology: Oh, you can still steal the enemy mook’s armor, provided you’re an engineer and are willing to spend about 10 seconds repairing it to driving condition (full health. It disables somewhere around 50% HP, depending on where it’s been hit, and must be restored to 100% before it can move again).

  5. ShineDog says:

    I think the fact that past (I think it was 50% health in the Alpha) your vehicle breaks down, stops moving, goes on fire and starts bleeding health makes Engineers pretty much required. And he even talks about this in the article you are quoting, which you don’t mention. C’mon guys.

  6. AMonkey says:

    I don’t find this particulary alarming. It does say “lightly damaged” and it seems like a good idea.

  7. FleabagF7 says:

    Regenerating player health didn’t defeat the point of medkits, just as regenerating tank health won’t defeat the point of engineers. As long as the regen is reasonably paced, as player health is, I don’t see a problem.

  8. Simas says:

    I dunno about all of you, but “Hardcore mode” is what made Bad Company 2 great for me. My hopes are that this regenerating stuff will be disabled on BF3 hardcore mode.

    • Jimmy Z says:

      Amen. I just simply can’t even play BFBC2 on the normal mode servers anymore, feels just so retarded having the cheat-o-vision spotting system, minimap showing enemies and having to empty seven clips and three knives to every enemy you come across, especially since they start regenerating after about three nanoseconds of not being exposed the direct fire, like the fucking Wolverine or something.

      Needless to say, this thing about regenerating tank health doesn’t really appeal to me at all and goes against everything we’ve had in previous Battlefields. Despite what they say, I firmly believe it *will* make engineers more redundant.

      Here’s to hoping that BF3 keeps the HC mode intact and that the mode doesn’t have regenerating health neither for infantry or vehicles (or any of the other dumb shit).

    • ShineDog says:

      While on it’s own this change might make engineers more redundant, you’re missing out on the other change that makes engineers absolutely essential.

      Tanks break down. Once a tank gets to 50% health it conks out. It stops. It’s a sitting duck. Engineers NEED to get to the tank at this point because even if no one is trying to finish it off, it’s on fire now. It’s bleeding health, not regenerating. Fix it or lose it.

      (This applies to helos and jets too, which can repair at base. They don’t conk out entirely but become slow and hard to control.)

      Also – No aimbot. 3d spot is in but doesn’t show if the target is in cover/concealement.

    • Joshua says:

      @ Jimmy Z

      You appear to have forgotten that hardcore mode only changes the damage values, and that everything else can be enabled and disabled as a per server setting…

      Also… You are grossly overstating everything of normal mode, especially about the health and the health regeneration…

    • ShineDog says:

      I dont think it touches the damage values, it gives you 60 health. Small difference but makes some changes with regards to how certain perks effect things.

      And yeah, BC2 health recharge was not the fast health recharge of the CoD games.

    • Vagrant says:

      Man, hardcore mode is so broken in BC2… I can’t understand why anybody would play that. It’s so easy to just dominate in HC mode.

    • Jimmy Z says:

      @ Joshua

      Actually for the server to be flagged as pure HC server it needs to have 3D spotting, killcam, minimap, friendly fire etc. disabled.

      @ Vagrant

      Oh? I’ve spent hundreds of hours on HC servers and can’t say they are really broken, unless the server admins are silly enough to not have a sniper cap enabled, which should be a built in feature anyway even on normal servers. In fact everyone willingly playing a wookie should be kicked in the nuts in the first place.

    • wazups2x says:

      Yep, BC2 isn’t balanced for hardcore mode at all. Snipers and shotguns are way overpowered.

    • liquidsoap89 says:

      I keep trying to like HC mode, but not being able to spot people just kills it for me. If I could play HC with spotting (but no minimap) I would be there in a heart beat.

    • bonjovi says:

      why do people think snipers or shotguns are overpowered?

      played over 150h only on HC servers and as much as I hate being snipped or shot gunned, it’s just part of the game.

      I actually hate non-HC servers for this reason – that sniper rifle to the head should kill you.

      Also if i run up to someone and from about 5 yards shoot him with my military grade shotgun – he should be dead.

      Also I understand some admins limiting number of snipers I think it’s unnecessary. Let them snipe. I actually enjoin, hunting snipers down :-) or avoiding them.

      1 thing that annoys me is base rape – without good admin there is nothing you can do about it. maybe you should get automatically – 100 points each time you kill someone who spawned within last 2min and is within his base. What do you think?

  9. Nethlem says:

    Really depends on how much damage it’s gonna regenerate, but other then that, that’s a pretty nice change imho. After all this is promoting to play the vehicles in a way they should be used…

    I could allways punch a kitten in the face when some idiot steals a tank just to rush it into the middle of the enemy base to make it instantly explode. That’s not the way these vehicles get used, especially not by engineers.

    So adding this regenerating help maybe helps condition people not to rush the friggin vehicles right into the enemy line of fire and instead to slowly crawl forward using cover and teammates…

    • Milky1985 says:

      “I could allways punch a kitten in the face when some idiot steals a tank just to rush it into the middle of the enemy base to make it instantly explode. That’s not the way these vehicles get used, especially not by engineers.”

      OK this is getting stupid, lots of people on here including yourself are saying its a good change because it will make people use tanks how they are meant to be used.

      My question, what the hell are you on about and HOW will this make a blindest bit of difference to how the vechicals are going to get used. Do you really think that being able to hide round a corner to regen a small ammount of amour will stop people driving tanks straight into the middle of the enemy base? To stop using them for transport? There is a massive mistep in this logic

      It smells more of people in there heads trying to understand a desicision they don’t understand and coming up with any old reason to justify it.

      Can someonme please explain how a littl ebit fo amour regen will stop peopel charing in? cause i sure as hell don’t see it.

    • Salt says:

      The theory is: non-engineer players will see that they can get more out of a tank by being careful with it. Controlling a tank like you’d control the player character in single-player of Call of Honor – ducking in and out of cover to regenerate health when they’re hit. As well as keeping the tank alive longer it acts as training for the concept of not driving off into an open field when at 52% health and being repaired.

      Compare that to a non-engineer tank crew in Bad Company 2 who know that their tank is inevitably going to die from the cumulation of small damage, so feel they may as well charge in to get a guaranteed couple of kills. Acting more cautiously without an engineer to repair, you know you’re going to get picked off by anti-armour units in a few minutes, during which time you may not get any kills at all.

      That is the theory but whether you think players do/will act in accordance with it is up to you.

      Personally I’ve frequently seen tank drivers charge wildly into enemy lines, but they do seem to be aiming to kill people with the tank rather than using it purely as a safe method of transport. Seems to me the quad bikes are both faster and safer as they’re harder to hit with and less likely to draw the attention of enemy rockets.

  10. Lobotomist says:

    I say , lets give them the benefit of doubt.

    I play a lot of competitive FPS , and BFBC2 has some of best game mechanic design i have seen. (at least had originally)

    DICE know what they are doing

    • DrGonzo says:

      I would say each of their games since 2142 has gotten worse. I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one because it looks so damned pretty. But I think I will just stick with Red Orchestra 2!

    • Vagrant says:

      Pretty sure you have that backwards. Games got progressively worse going to 2142.

      Never played 1942, but I’m told it was the best? 2 was aewsome. 2142 was garbage. Then, Bad Company 1 was flawed but decent, and BC2 was great, if lacking some of Battlefield 2′s depth.

      So far everything I’ve heard about Battlefield 3 continues that upward trend.

  11. crs2029 says:

    what about other vehicles damage. i remeber crysis had chopper damage shoot missiles and it would spin out a bit.

    • ShineDog says:

      When a normal vehicle would get knocked out and disabled at 50%, jets/helos apparently become really hard to fly and slow, the pilot can make the old BF2 airfield repair flyby to fix.

    • LionsPhil says:

      The old BF1942 airfield flyby. Ah, good times…

      …watching everyone trying to camp the airstrip and shoot down whoever got to the plane first with friendly fire. ಠ_ಠ

    • Askeladd says:

      How about they fix that?

  12. Corrupt_Tiki says:

    I think this could work, but they have to be pretty careful(i’m sure they will be.) or else every single tank will just stay right out of the battlefield, and snipe with their cannon, which is not how they do it in real life, afaik, the infantry advance with the cover of tanks, and tanks won’t move without infantry to cover them.

    that’s assuming they want to go for a more realistic feel.
    I will preorder this when I am not quite so poor. :>
    I also agree with one of the above comments that Hardcore mode Made BFBC2 so much better.

    • Starky says:

      Well realistic would be no tanks at all, as lets face it they are pretty damn useless on the modern battlefield. They are too easily taken out, from too far away.

      Maybe in 3rd world countries where they best they have is anti-personel RPGs, IEDs and AKs they still find some use, but any actual modern war with 2 actual modern armies, tanks are almost useless – unless one side has total air dominance, and if one side has total air dominance the war is over.

      Tanks are great for a game, because in a game they can respawn – realistically however modern infantry have all the tools they need to deal with tanks – never mind aircraft which would murder them wholesale.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      The armies of all the major world powers seem to think otherwise.

    • Lack26 says:

      Ergates_Antius is right, tanks most definitely do have a place on the battlefield, currently this generation of tank is ahead of the curve when it comes to AT weaponry/defence, the armour and protection systems are superior to the threats it faces making loss of tanks to ground teams in a modern army unlikely.

      The most effective way to counter armour would be by air-attack, but in an army-on-army conflict AA weaponry would be brought along to cover the armour, given the current level of AA available to the US, Russia and China an attack with aircraft would be tactical suicide and no commander worth his salt would attempt it. The war games played by the US and UK show that in a state-on-state non-nuclear attack air supremacy would be hard to achieve, you would rely on raids and ground forces to knock out AA before you could safely move aircraft up. The most effective weapons would be armour and artillery, artillery being at the state now that in an engagement you could expect 90% casualties on both sides (I believe one tactic proposed was an armoured fist to take out (or force to relocate) enemy arty, before sending in the infantry and mechanised forces).

    • WJonathan says:

      Tanks are still critical for any mechanized modern ground force. The biggest shortfall of today’s tanks is their need for refueling, due to the massive weight gain over the years.

    • Corrupt_Tiki says:

      @Starky I have to say I disagree,

      Total air dominance does not mean you win the war, sure it opens more options up, but as proven time and time again, Sustained Aerial Bombing raids in WW2, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and I’m sure many more – does not mean victory is guaranteed, it just tends to make a mess of everything.

      I think the battlefield has a while to go before the tank becomes obsolete, and I mean, if they were, I’m sure the Ministry of Defence for some of the most powerful nations on earth would click onto it long before some people on a tube in the internet somewhere do.

    • Tams80 says:

      As Corrupt_Tiki has said, air superiority does not mean automatic victory and can sometimes even lead to confusion. In the short existence of aerial combat, I can think of no conflicts where air superiority on it’s own has caused victory. One of the best defences against air superiority just happens to be the simplest and cheapest form of combat; guerilla warfare.

  13. Schiraman says:

    The thing I’ve always found strange (both from a realism and a gameplay PoV) about Battlefield vehicles is the idea that you can drive and gun a tank all by yourself.

    As a Planetside veteran, I’ve always liked the idea of tanks requiring a separate driver and gunner. Tanks are powerful weapons, requiring teamwork in order to make them useful is a good balance factor – and in my experience multi-person vehicles are just a lot more fun.

    • methodology says:

      I think i remember them saying that tanks will have a 3 man crew in bf3, so probably a driver/main gunner, secondary gunner and tank commander? hopefully.

  14. karry says:

    “You can stand there all you want, but your health isnt going to automatically regenerate. Stop being such a f*****g p***y*”

  15. rocketman71 says:

    Curious. Many apologists in the thread for this stint of consolitis.

    • Balm says:

      Not sure if real humans or market-bots.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      Neither : Troll.

    • hello_mr.Trout says:

      both: bot-trolls

    • Unaco says:

      Now now… I think you should apologise to rocketman71 for labelling him a “troll”. I don’t see anything in his comment that would make him a “troll”. There are a lot of valid complaints about what is happening with BF3… it isn’t mana from heaven, it isn’t perfect PC gaming gold. You may think it’s going to be the best thing since sliced bread, but others are allowed to disagree and to voice that disagreement. And they shouldn’t automatically be labelled “trolls” for doing so.

    • DrGonzo says:

      Yes, I do pretty much agree with him. I’m going to try and ignore those negative thoughts and enjoy it. But I really do think it looks like Bad Company 3 and not the Battlefield 3 I was looking for.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      Straw Man.

      People who raise valid concerns aren’t labelled as trolls. People who complain about “consolitis” are.

      Quite ironic too considering the OP referred to people who weren’t upset by the announcement as “appologists”…

    • Unaco says:

      “Consolitis” is perhaps a word with too much negative connotations. But, there is a valid concern that the game is ‘suffering’ from a focus on consoles, and/or that the PC version isn’t getting as much love as it should. And, that focus on consoles is a valid concern.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      If elements of the game were to suffer from a focus on consoles – e.g. shitty UI (like Oblivion), or shitty server browsers, or P2P only, or auto aim, or limits on map-size/number of players, etc. Then that is a valid concern.

      If you don’t like this particular feature/change, then fine. I’m not a massive fan either, but it doesn’t really bother me that much, I can’t see it having a huge effect on anything much (hit a tank hard enough and it’ll still pop).

      I don’t see, however, how this particular feature/change can really be “blamed” on consoles.

  16. AbyssUK says:

    Re-gen health for peeps too… hum sniping just got a lot easier, part of being the sniper was dealing with health… do you run away to find a medic or do you go for that next shot.. now you just wait out of sight a bit before the next shot…

  17. Megadyptes says:

    Next up: regenerating ammo!

  18. trigger_rant says:

    Regenerating Health eh? Kids love it.

  19. TT says:

    dont see any problem
    “regenerating health” its odd -soldier tank aircraft its all the same. Hit points are even odder! but I guess since they are among us since games where invented nobody finds them odd anymore.

    I prefer to think it simulates battle stress or any fast recoverable injury/ temporary disorientation etc..
    So the first % of “damage” is not real damage

  20. beloid says:

    the main problem is that this is bad PR, not necessarily bad game feature. Those are the times when developer seem to shout out every little unimportant information about changes they made in the game that most gamers probably wouldn’t notice playing. And than the internet rages because someone changed that little thing we were so much accustomed to.

  21. Generic Individual says:

    Reminds me of the good old days of Medal of Honour Allied Assault: Breakthrough and it’s TANK HEALTH KITS.

    Regenerating tank health seems, somehow, less silly in comparison.

  22. FieldOfTheBattle says:

    It’s better to lose the vehicle than have some sniper hide 5 minutes in the bushes to wait for his tank to repair.

  23. Lux says:

    Sigh, getting less and less interested in BF3 and more interested in Red Orchestra 2.

    • Longrat says:

      +1
      Between origin, 60€, regenerating health, regenerating armor, BC2 style combat mechanics and store exclusives, I’ll be sticking to RO2. It’s a tough, punishing, brutal game, but it only gives me what I deserve, no more, no less. I deserve perfected combat mechanics, 40$ costs and a devoted dev team.

    • Petethegoat says:

      I’ve been playing the RO2 beta yesterday and the day before, and I have to say that it is bloody brilliant. A few rough edges, but all the bugs I encountered on the first day were fixed by the second.

      I love lots of the little touches, like being able to check how many rounds you have left and being able to load rounds one at a time if you’re not entirely out of ammo. The cover system is really good also. It really is -very- satisfying to play.

  24. metalangel says:

    This seems as good a place as any to say:

    I want UT3-style vehicle locks. Where freshly spawned vehicles in the base can only be used by their team, and are LOCKED to the opposing team. Once the vehicle has been used by its team, though, it’s then unlocked and can be taken by anyone.

    This eliminates the massive fucking irritating of some jerk from the other team parachuting into your base and stealing your Apache/MBT/whatever right off its spawn point.

    • FieldOfTheBattle says:

      Whoever has the balls and skill to go behind enemy lines and steal a vehicle deserves it more than the team that failed to use it in the first place.

    • Telemikus says:

      I agree with FieldOfTheBattle

      Use em or lose em

    • metalangel says:

      There’s no balls or skill involved parachuting down and hitting ‘get into vehicle’, it’s borderline griefing. Do you also agree that spawn and baseraping is entirely okay, because I’ve played too many games of Atacama Desert in BC2 where the enemy team has stolen both helicopters, is sitting in one of our own tanks and as soon as we spawn, we die.

      UT3′s was an elegant and inobtrusive solution.

  25. db1331 says:

    Good. Engineers are worthless anyways. Everyone knows the only way to be a help to your team is to snipe from the main.

  26. molten_tofu says:

    They nerfed the multitool! Whatever, it was overpowered anyways. I beat the entire SP campaign on Bob the Builder difficulty without dying once. #humblebrag

  27. Walsh says:

    This was great in the alpha: when your tank was damaged by running over a wall or whatever, you weren’t punished for it. The regenerating health did not help at all after one or two good RPG hits.

  28. Bilbo1981 says:

    Haha Dice can go to hell and Battlefield with them, thanks for destroying a once great gaming concept. You wait next there will be an invincibility mode and then quad damage! xD

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      Yes, because this minor change completely destroys the whole game doesn’t it.

      Did you actually read the article, or just the headline?

    • Unaco says:

      Maybe it isn’t just this single change that the OP is complaining about, and feels is changing the game to its detriment. It could be the forcing of Origin, the lack of ingame server browser, the heavily ‘scripted’ and rigid nature of the destructible environments, day 1 DLC, exclusives for certain retailers, or some other change that they’ve announced or hinted at.

    • ankh says:

      Quad damage would fucking rule. It would be like a side-objective within a game to see who can time it right or who can control the point and get quad damage. (And then blow everyone away with a CG :)

  29. Barman1942 says:

    After playing RO2′s tank map in the beta, I don’t think any FPS with tanks will ever come close to being as harrowing as that experience. That said, I’m not sure just what to think of slow regenerating health for vehicles, even if it is only for light damage. Sure, you still need the engineer, but now you need the engineer *less*.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      I generally play an engineer, and the “less need for repairing minor damage” aspect of it doesn’t really bother me – especially as it sounds like medium/heavily damaged vehicles will need engineers a lot more.

      What concerns me a bit is that it will make it harder to whittle away at the health of tanks that are sitting back from the action and sniping.

  30. Dominic White says:

    Having been playing FPS’s since Catacomb Abyss in glorious CGA, here’s my thought:

    Every game should have regenerating health. It’s good design.

    Hold fire! Hear me out: To avoid frustration, health should regenerate from 1-20% fairly rapidly (saving you from the frustration of getting caught in a situation where anything can kill you instantly), and maybe 80-100% but slowly, meaning that if you’ve just taken a small scratch, you don’t have to go backtracking for health items to patch yourself up to full before you can proceed.

    The entire 20-80% range would be restorable only through health items, of course. But if you remove the frustrations and foibles involved in a purely health-pack oriented system, you keep the game moving forward and cut out a lot of the Pyrrhic victories that require quickloading even if you survived.

    Alternatively, the segmented health-bar systems of Chronicles of Riddick and Far Cry 2 worked great, allowing you to regenerate from ‘scratches’ like getting winged by an SMG bullet at long range, but get hit by a shotgun and you’ll still need to heal.

    • Heliocentric says:

      Different games are balanced around different health systems, nothing wrong with regenerating health, flying a jet over a runway healed and rearmed it in bf2, this is no more obscene. I’ll take a wait and see approach, I was never going to buy on day one.

  31. JohnnyMaverik says:

    “Regenerating Tank Health”

    I’m no longer excited about Battlefield 3.

    Also that’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard in quite a long time.

  32. Unaco says:

    All sounds and looks a bit tedious and dull.

  33. Bearrorist says:

    It is a good idea, and I have nothing against it, but people need to stop calling Bad Company 2 and upcoming BF3 super realistic combat simulators. And by people i mean consolites.

  34. Shooop says:

    And in case you’d forgotten why anyone with half a brain is NOT interested in BF3 anymore, here’s a link to one of this site’s own reports: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/24/eas-origin-eula-proves-even-more-sinister/

    • Heliocentric says:

      Seems I don’t have half a brain.

    • Vinraith says:

      Anyone with a full brain already noticed that Origin’s EULA isn’t significantly different from that of every other digital distributor. That doesn’t make it suck less, of course, but it’s strange to single EA out about it when Steam, D2D, and the others get off without equivalent condemnation.

    • Shooop says:

      Obvious you haven’t read the story Vinraith. RPS clearly says other distributors put a limit to what they can scan for – just their game files. EA’s? Your whole computer is fair game.

      Dare I speculate you don’t even have a quarter of a brain now?

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      Whilst this is certainly a valid concern regarding Origins deeply creepy EULA it doesn’t get over the initial flaw in your argument:

      By using the phrase “…anyone with half a brain…” you’re shooting yourself in the foot. You’re describing the behaviour of someone with half a brain. A moron. It begs the immediate response “Well yes, I can see how someone with half a brain might think that”. What you (probably) mean is “…anyone with more than half a brain…”. It’s like the Americans strange use of the phrase “I could care less” when what they actually mean is “I could not care less.”.

      These things are important.

    • Shooop says:

      Damn you Ergates_Antius, you’ve caught me! am indeed one of those Americans who’ve butchered our own language. I much prefer this site to our own like GameSpot and IGN which bludgeon viewers with more flash ads than a XXX site.

      I actually did pick up on the “could not care less” thing years ago, but there is always one that slips through until someone else points it out.

      Anyways, I find it confusing why RPS is still reporting on BF3 here even after explaining why it’s a very good idea not to buy it.

    • Unaco says:

      @shoop…

      Obviously YOU aren’t keeping up with the story. EA changed the ORIGIN EULA, about a week ago. Made it less sinister, and assured there would be any shenanigans with whatever data they collect.

    • Shooop says:

      All they changed Unaco was adding, “We’re not going to sell our findings to people.”

      There’s still nothing stating they’re limited in what they can scan on your computer – which is the whole reason to be outraged over it in the first place. So nothing actually meaningful has changed. They still have a blank check to search anywhere on any computer that has Origin.

  35. Shadowcat says:

    If you’re willing to accept “regenerating health” for infantry, then you shouldn’t have a problem with it for vehicles.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>